Ward-El v. Lucky et al

Filing 24

ORDER Adopting 23 Report and Recommendation, Granting Defendants' 9 Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Plaintiff's 17 Motion to Dismiss as Moot, and Dismissing Plaintiff's 1 Complaint Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (Sian, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
NATHANIEL WARD-EL,
Plaintiff,
v

Case No. 15-cv-10238
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis

JAMES LUCKY, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT, AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Nathaniel Ward-el, a prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights action on January 21,
2015. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants James Lucky, Lacy O’Connor, Willie Riley, Penny
Landrum, and Mashawn Campbell, employees of the Cooper Street Correctional Facility (JCS),
violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 by conspiring to retaliate against
him for engaging in protected conduct under the First Amendment. ECF No. 1. Specifically,
Ward-el alleged that after he expressed intent to notify authorities of staff corruption at the jail
facility, Defendant Library Technician Lucky issued him a false Class II misconduct violation
for being out of place on August 17, 2012. Ward-el claims that after he filed a grievance against
Lucky on August 20, 2012 Defendants then conspired to transfer him in retaliation. Id.
On March 23, 2015 Defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 9.
On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff Ward-el filed objections to Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. ECF No. 18. He also filed a motion to dismiss Defendant Lacey O’Connor from the
action. ECF No. 16.

On March 10, 2016, Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis issued a report
recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and Ward-el’s motion
to dismiss be denied as moot. ECF No. 23.

Judge Dawkins reasoned that Defendants had

carried their burden of showing that Plaintiff Ward-el had failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies under 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a).

She therefore recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s

complaint without prejudice.
Although Magistrate Judge Dawkins’s report explicitly states that the parties to this
action could object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of
the report, neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed any objections.

The election not to file

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently
review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the
report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
ECF No. 23, is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 9, is
GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Ward-el’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 17, is
DENIED as moot.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Ward-el’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
It is further ORDERED that permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
DENIED. An appeal would be frivolous and could not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C.
§1915 (a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).

-2-

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: March 30, 2016

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on March 30, 2016.
s/Michael A. Sian
MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager

-3-